|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Two months ago, Measure V might have stood for “victory” — but now that might as well be “vendetta.” The long political battle for rent control in Mountain View appears to now be spiraling into what could be an even longer courtroom feud.
On the eve of its implementation last week, the voter-approved charter amendment hit a brick wall after the California Apartment Association filed a lawsuit alleging the law is unconstitutional. With the suit, a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge granted a temporary restraining order, halting plans for a citywide rent freeze and rollback that would have brought most rents back to October 2015 rates.
A package of eviction protections approved by the City Council in November are still in effect, preventing landlords from ousting tenants arbitrarily.
It is unclear how long this hold on Measure V will remain in place. The temporary restraining order is set to expire by Feb. 3, but attorneys for the apartment association will likely file for a preliminary injunction to keep it from taking effect until the case is decided.
The situation has caused plenty of confusion for tenants and landlords in town. Throughout December, city officials and tenant advocates had been holding meetings and distributing informational fliers to prepare residents before Measure V was supposed to take effect on Dec. 23. Those groups now face a similar challenge in spreading the word that those plans are on hold.
“It’s really an unfortunate position for us; we were telling folks this rollback would be in effect,” said Evan Ortiz, an organizer with the Mountain View Tenants Coalition which drafted Measure V. “Now we have to double back to tell everyone that the city didn’t choose to challenge this.”
Last week, the Tenant Coalition organized a downtown march to demonstrate support for Measure V and to nudge city leaders to protect it. Promotional materials for the rally made it clear the Tenants Coalition is blaming the Mountain View City Council for not acting to immediately defend Measure V.
City officials last week opted not to contest the temporary restraining order against Measure V. Instead, the city attorney only requested that the judge avoid removing the emergency eviction protections the council had approved following the election. In a city press release, officials said the delay in implementing rent control would “provide time for the city to fully analyze the complaint and ensure the immediate preservation of the city’s just-cause eviction urgency ordinance.”
The city’s decision not to defend Measure V was disappointing since the charter amendment should have a significant legal advantage, Ortiz said. Throughout California, rent-control provisions have been upheld in more than a dozen cities, he said.
“We were disappointed that the city didn’t defend Measure V more vigorously,” he said. “A lot of folks have the perception that the City Council didn’t come up to bat for Measure V.”
The city of Mountain View is not obligated to defend Measure V, and the City Council will eventually need to state its position. The council is expected to meet again in closed-session to discuss the case in the coming weeks.
“A lot of folks have the perception that the City Council didn’t come up to bat for Measure V.”
And a lot of other folks (including many of us who aren’t landlords, some in fact are renters) have the perception that Measure V and its ilk are dumb ideas. They aren’t targeted specifically to fix the problems that motivated them, they benefit many people who aren’t hard-pressed, and they have side effects on the rental market far beyond their near-term impacts on the rents tenants pay. “Throughout California, rent-control provisions have been upheld in more than a dozen cities [Evan Ortiz said]” — omitting to add the rest of the story (chilling out of vacancies, stagnation of existing rental housing stock, squatting by well-to-do tenants paying below-market rates who otherwise would have moved on and freed up the space) also characteristic of those other California cities. I know, I’ve rented there. I won’t even go into the impact on many mom-and-pop landlords: the side effects of residential rent control are dire enough without even that factor. All of this is part of reality. You can only fail to see it if you don’t want to, and selectively perceive just the parts of rent control that you like. But selective perception only reflects on the perceiver — it does not change the reality.
I was a renter, now an “owner” who incidentally spends way more than 50% of my income on a mortgage – but no one wants to help me.
There are lots of buyers that struggle to improve their lives without demanding help from the city. I got my down-payment by working two jobs – the old fashioned way.
Sure I’d prefer to be living in Palo Alto or Woodside but I just cannot afford it. But according to these whiners the landlords of PA and Woodside should reduce their rents and house prices so I can live there on their dime. Ha!
If I were a landlord in MV I would convert my properties all to airBnb and be done with it.
Mountain View city council should wait and try measure V in court. Rent control does not improve communities. If you have tenants that can’t afford market rate rent then do you think they can afford the life style? No! They would detract from neighborhoods and communities. Let market continue to make mountain view the best city!
Thanks folks for pointing out the truth of this: violates California law, has long lasting consequences that negate any positives, decreases market availability, harms small mom and pop owners, results in degradation of neighborhoods, decreases property values for homeowners, loss of equity for landlords… The negative effects are many and long lasting.
I find it particularly offensive that proponents of measure V keep bringing up prop 13 and mortgage interest deductions. It only shows ignorance, as, if these two factors were actually profitable, renters would instead buy and benefit from these. Instead, proponents argue that they should get a cut of the landlords’ tax benefits, without having a mortgage, interest, down payment, cost of maintenance, additional utilities and other costs, risks and responsibilities of property ownership. Enjoy your never never land. You’ve implemented a chain of harmful events under the guise of looking out for the little guy and have instead launched yet another attack on the middle class. Seriously, this is REALLY bad karma.
It’s unfortunate that that measure V is a venue for action that could be beneficial if aimed at real issues and properly directed. Ironic, isn’t it, that measure V does nothing to prevent homelessness. Measure V: a venue for special interest.
I think the courts need to decide this. Unfortunately, Measure V was poorly written and benefits some who are well able to pay rents, and could well confiscate an owner’s rights illegally. “Thomas Jefferson” and “some animals…” have made clear points, and I’m sure the court proceedings will examine both sides of the issue.
And I truly mean no offense, “Business Man”, but PLEASE don’t take over this article’s postings with your endless posts as you are already doing in another. (It quickly reaches the point of readers just skipping what you write!) Shorter and to the point would be much more welcome, in my opinion.
“Mountain View Neighbor” – I just read your post and wanted to thank you. You have put this so clearly and honestly – and pointed out the very serious flaws in the arguments of the pro-V people. I’m hoping the Courts will do the same – especially the false flag of Prop 13. Thank you!
I keep hearing the pro-V people making a comparison between rent control mortgage interest deduction. I don’t see the logic. So what if the govt has decided that homeowners should get some type of dediction. The opportunity is open to everyone. Renting is not meant to be a permanent housing solution. I am renting now and never think that I should be entitled to live here as long as I want.
One day I will buy, probably completely out of the area, which is what I can afford, but as a renter I don’t expect a subside. Renting should be temporary, and come with lots of flexibility. The benefit of renting is you can move often with just 30 days notice. If people here are renting as permanent housing here, then maybe we need more housing built for purchase, not rent like Prometheus does, so people have a chance to actually own something, even just a small apartment.
As for prop 13, same thing. Once you’ve spent 30 years buying something that you then OWN, why should you be forced to move because you can’t pay taxes owed to the government? What’s the meaning then of “owning” something in this country? Best to make those taxes reasonably affordable.
If you want to take advantage of this benefit, save your money and buy something. I bet an apartment in Vaiselia would be a possibility for many people. It might not be Mountain View, but you will own it, have you taxes locked in for when you are old and unable to work, and you can contribute to making that community great.
It’s like anything else where government overreaches. With rent control the market won’t be self correcting, so you end up with a city that has owners and renters being less likely to be friends. Tenants that pay substantially more than others are also less likely to be friends. All this leads to divides in the community. Tenants who can’t afford to pay market rates for life style that the market sets will be less likely to contribute to community by going to local businesses that charge market prices for products and services. That’s another separation in community. Mountain View, as a relatively small city, has become amazing and has great potential, but that potential is coming from private sector, not forced government regulations.
I don’t understand why a whole bunch of you geniuses cannot sign yourself with your name or at least use two letters or a fake name instead of nonsense names like “Some animals are more equal than others” (the stupidest one of all). I also don’t understand why you have to digress on completely out-of-topic and out-of-place personal or social arguments about your own mortgage situation and the definition of marriage. Stick to the issue and write something that is useful or just do something useful instead of whining randomly on an important issue such as paying the rent if you don’t own.
Now let’s get to the point which is really about rent control. The people spoke, it was a democratic decision and the chickens in the city hall allowed all this unnecessary delay to take place. This is just a way to postpone the effect of the much-needed rent control in Mountain View. Whoever is behind this, and we know who it is, will only lose in the end. This is just like all the democrats that lost that last election. You just can’t cope with the fact you are the losers and you are doing the same thing here. I hope this thing gets resolved in a way that will force whoever raised rents during the “delay period” to reimburse with interests whoever ends up paying more. Unfortunately, some people will leave the city because the rent increase they will see will not allow them to live here anymore.
Finally, all the arguments about rent stabilization hurting the city are complete nonsense. If people spend less money on rent and they are financially intelligent, they will put more money in their local banks and invest more money in their retirement investment. The cities will have more money and the people will be comfortable to live in the city without having to plan on moving elsewhere because it got too expensive to live in Mountain View.
Long live Measure V! We will win again!
I voted against Measure V. Given the chance, I would vote to repeal it. However, it is now the law in this town, and I think the city has an obligation to defend it. Furthermore, since it’s similar to rent stabilization laws in other towns, I doubt CAA has much of a chance in this lawsuit.
I have heard people refer to this measure in terms of human rights. Does that mean we all have a right to live wherever we want?
If you can’t afford to live somewhere, move somewhere else. That’s what everyone else does. The housing and property values are in cycles. Eventually, the rents will go down. With rent control, however, they’ll stay down, which is not a good thing.
Rent control is a fact in many, many communities. Like Palo Alto. We should not allow native residents to be kicked out of their homes just because Google moved in.
I think you mean East Palo Alto.
Palo Alto doesn’t have rent control, but they have special housing for low wage families.
Just because you lived somewhere for a long time doesn’t give you a right to live there. Moving out of cities you can’t afford to live in is part of life. I know people who recently moved to Stockton because they couldn’t afford to live in San Jose where they grew up.
This is a legal, not political issue now. All pundits predicting that rent control was always legal and will be for ever an ever amen, could be up for a similar surprise as ones in the latest presidential election.
Laws of the land as defined by Supreme Courts of California and US have been tilting lately away from rent control constitutionality. As a matter of fact in the Recent Kavanau case rent control was declared as unconstitutional taking requiring just compensation.
Just google that case if you are interested.
I am sure the Business Man is going to give his long and irrelevant tirade against it as he always does. Nothing else should be expected from him.
@The Business man
I can’t say you are wrong, but I can tell you I heard the exact same arguements as what you’ve outlined back in the lately 1990’s. “Everyone is going to leave because they can’t afford to live here, tech in the Bay will move to cheaper cities, etc.” And yet, 20 years later, it’s booming here more than ever.
As far as keeping communities together/tearing them apart, I think communities, like everything else, evolve. People move in, people move out. It’s just a fact of life.
If the people who currently can’t afford to live here owned property, they wouldn’t support Measure V either.
If those same people who cook my food, sell my groceries, and wash my car owned property in Mountain View, most, if not all of them, would be saying the same thing I am.
The results of the measure only show that more people renting in Mountain View voted for the measure than those who own property.
Anyhow, it’s all pointless to argue. The measure has only been delayed.
Rent control is immoral government sanctioned theft of private property.
Bottom line Measure V or significant parts of it will be found unconstitutional based on partial regulatory taking interpretation of fifth amendment.
Ralph, if you think things always will be the same and never change – vote for Hillary.
Business Man you are losing averyone in your long rants and twisting the legal theories to accommodate your views.
Ralph,
I don’t know if you are a homeowner or renter, but am sure many homeowners in MV voted for Measure V.
However I haven’t seen a single homeowner who would be wiling to sell their home for anything less than maximum market price. Teachers, firemen etc could move in to enrich and serve the community if they would slice the sale price in half. Otherwise that can’t afford it.
But of course the hipocracy is that it is easy and painless to put it on the shoulders of isolated small group- landlords.
A lot of the people that do low wage jobs in Mountain View already come from other communities or sleep in their cars (RV and van crises). The right trade off by the city government should be to use newly acquired taxes to invest in infrastructure and house zoning instead of rent control. A healthy cycle should be something like (private sector growth) -> (gov’t tax revenue growth) -> (gov’t infrastructure and house zoning investment) -> (community growth & healthiness) -> (private sector growth). Some folks can’t stand change so they vote for rent control and so we get further community divide and spending our time on arguing over it instead of holding city accountable for investment of all the new tax revenue that they get from private sector and additional property tax increases.
Furthermore, don’t dismiss that long time house owners pay very little property tax compared to market rates, because their property tax is fixed to the purchase price instead of being market adjusted every few years. They eventually move out anyway to cash in on the price rises, but the city government should of collected part of that with property tax instead of it going to federal government with capital gains. This in a way is similar to rent control. What you got is lack of city tax revenue, so city doesn’t respond fast enough to invest in infrastructure and zoning changes. Don’t expect rent control to solve any of our city problems. It’s a solution to a wrong problem.
Markets are remarkably resilient. With real estate it takes planning and in the case of Mt. View lots of undergrounding, As for “affordable housing” HUD says only 25% of those who qualify get it. Resources are scarce. Do you want a police department, schooling or lots of “affordable housing.” In any case,the big budget item is the explosion of heath care for the tsunami of retiring baby boomers. In conjunction with the apartment house owners the city council is saving Mt. View from the disaster of rent control. George Drysdale a social science teacher
Property owners voting for V makes as much sense as renters voting against it. If any property owners voted for V, they clearly don’t have concerns with money. I’ll add that I’m sure they would be a considerable minority of voters. So you’re right, I don’t comprehend it because it doesn’t make sense.
I can tell you I definitely comprehend that renters moving outside of Mountain View doesn’t mean a community is being torn apart. It means a community is having a new beginning. The worst of it is that some property owners really had to pull themselves up by the bootstraps to buy property as an investment and now laws are being passed that will cause the values to drag and drop. I wonder how the renters will feel if, after struggling for years to buy property, get slapped with a law like this.
The market is in cycles. Everyone is forgetting, the values will eventually drop again (and it won’t be long from now). With the rent control in place, there will be restraint on the values of property going back up the next time around; eventually, people renting now will want to move out of Mountain View.
Mountain View is so screwed.
Anyhow, all that said, I bow out of this discussion. V already passed, so there’s nothing to be done but vent. Plus, I feel like I’m reading and responding to YouTube video comments and that’s depressing.
Many council members (some during this election cycle) accepted political contributions from the CAA or its members. Wondering if any council member recused himself/herself at the closed session meeting(s) to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest or unfair bias towards their political patrons.
Do some people REALLY believe that everyone who works in Mountain View lives in Mountain View, and thus overturning Measure V would “tear our neighborhoods apart”? Should we somehow make laws that allow everyone who wants to live in a particular city, be able to afford it? Do you honestly think Measure V accomplishes that? Does everyone who works in Atherton, Los Altos, Sausalito, etc. live in those cities? It is a false argument that tries to paint opposition in the most negative way – and it accomplishes nothing but name-calling.
This measure would allow a few to stay in their apartments – surely at the eventual expense of the building owner. However, many who would “benefit” are well able to afford higher rents, and would not now move – freezing any new housing for those who truly could benefit from it. If this measure is allowed to stand, you can expect building owners to convert to condos and sell them at a very high price. You can bet that developers will build in other than Mountain View, even though new building is exempt. How does THAT make apartments more plentiful or affordable?
What right do we have to force an investor – who takes all the RISKS – to lower rents so a particular tenant can afford it? Why doesn’t Toyota lower the price on a Lexus so I can afford one? Why can’t I shop at Nieman-Marcus and afford what I want? Tell Safeway to lower the price of avocados, because I want guacamole.
I don’t accuse those opposed to Measure V of being elitist or racist, and those that do so, are trying to use hate as a method to push their agenda. Measure V is unfair to those who really need help, as it is so poorly written it will only be a temporary fix – then people will find themselves priced out of the market because of the decrease in available rentals this will bring. Measure V does the exact opposite of what it claims, but some will not face that fact and will continue to bluster about “destroying our neighborhoods”.
There is another point that needs to be examined. The board being formed to manage this measure is much too free-rein and will cost the taxpayers (INCLUDING renters) a great deal. A city only has a limited amount of funds, and I would rather not have our funds for schools, roads, infrastructure, and safety endangered.
All we can do now is wait for the court to look at this specific measure and how it is laid out. All of our opinions will have no effect. One thing I am certain: if this measure is allowed to go forward, eventually we will see homeowners far exceed the number of renters in this city. Is this a good thing? I don’t know the answer to that, but apartments will convert to condos and the only new building will be without rent control – so this surely is coming. Nothing is static in life – including the growth of a city. To argue other than that, is naive.
@The business man
It’s also interesting to note that the California Apartment Association (CAA) sued Mountain View but not Richmond (where voters passed a similar measure that just went into effect). Probably a pure coincidence completely unrelated to CAA political contributions ….
Again, go to the internet and read the statements about rent control. The poor do not end up with the price fixed rent controlled units. Over time just the opposite occurs. This is one of the reasons why rent control is the prime lesson plan in basic economics.
George Drysdale the tireless economics teacher
Housing stability is good. It is a crucial factor in building strong communities. Measure V will add housing stability for families who have been part of Mountain View for many years, and who will no longer need to live in fear of losing their community due to a huge rent increase.
Yes, the region has a housing shortage that must be addressed. Kicking out families with huge rent increases is not a good way to solve anything. Measure V was approved by the voters, and it is needed.
ugh.
I wonder how many of those protestors think the government ought to be defining marriage. Or telling them what drugs they can take in their own home. Maybe I’m painting with a broad brush, or standing up a straw man, but statistically speaking in the Bay Area, it’s safe to assume many of them would rather the government stay out of their business. If you don’t want the government telling you what to do, don’t use it to force others to bend to your ideals.
And how many of those protestors have any sort of investments? I imagine at least some have a 401k or some basic pension through a union perhaps. How many of them would tell the managers of their investments to not maximize their returns?
This all reminds me of my favorite movie quote from Men In Black, “a person is smart, people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119654/quotes)
You “know” rent control will work today. Let’s see what you “know” in 10 years.
“another viewpoint,”
How much of your mortgage interest are you deducting? If you’re a long term owner, what’s your property tax rate on the market value of your house? Seems likely that the California taxpayer is subsidizing you plenty.
Just my 2 cents.
You can look at the extensive research I presented in the following story thread:
http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2016/12/21/landlords-take-measure-v-to-court
But my most relevant point to discuss related to this story is:
I remember when Proposition 8 passed which excluded same-sex couples from being legally married. It was a voter initiative that modified the State Constitution, just like Measure V did in Mountain View.
However, unlike Measure V the courts would not prevent irreparable harm being done to either same-sex couples or their children. /the court required that Proposition 8 was required to be in effect during all legal challenges. This was true even when Proposition 8 was deemed unconstitutional in court. “On August 4, 2010, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8, stating it is “…unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause because no compelling state interest justifies denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry.”[208].
But even that decision was not in effect until all legal challenges were completed. The first challenge, “On February 7, 2012, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2–1 majority opinion affirming the judgment in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional,…”
But even then the decision was not in effect because,” On February 21, 2012, proponents requested to have to the case reviewed en banc by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.[227] If granted, en banc review could have taken a year or more, which would have delayed possible U.S. Supreme Court review.[227] Pending the appeal, a stay was continued, barring any marriages from taking place.[228] On June 5, 2012, the full Ninth Circuit refused to rehear the case; the stay would remain in place pending final action by the Supreme Court.[229]
But even then Propostion 8 was still in effect, only after, “The Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision on June 26, 2013.[235] Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, and was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer, and Scalia.[235] Justices Kennedy, Sotomayor, Alito, and Thomas were in the minority.[236] The Court found the proponents did not have standing to appeal in federal court….”
This means that any voter initiative Charter Amendment or Constitutional Amendment must be complied with until all legal challenges have been exhausted.
My question is, in what way is the CAA provided more protection under the U.S. or California Constitution that would support the recent court action?
Same–sex couples and their children were denied more than 1000 benefits because those benefits required the couples to be married, and not just a civil union. They waited 5 years until the court finally completed its work, 2 years until the case was decided in 2010, and another 3 years during the appeals. The CAA cannot claim they are any different, nor can they be treated differently, by the court. This would be in effect declaring that the CAA has more constitutional rights than the citizens harmed during litigation of Proposition 8.
Simple enough, the CAA must wait until the decision in court is made. The City Attorney cannot make any judicial determinations under the law. The City Council cannot make any judicial determinations under the law. The City Attorney clearly should have discussed that. The City Attorney by stipulating to a patently illegal restraining order would be a violation of the Proposition 8 legal history to the City Council. But the City Council simply is too interested in protecting the interests of the CAA and in effect ordered the City Attorney to violate the California Bar Regulations.
Can some explain it to me how the CAA is different from Same-Sex couples in this situation?
Again, I feel that the City Council and City Attorney knows about this situation and has seen fit to actively attack the City of Mountain View simply because they failed to win Measure W. The City Council made no attempt to hide the fact that it was an enemy of Measure V. This behavior would be consistent with both criminal and civil negative consequences under federal law. I have discussed many issues in detail in the thread:
http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2016/12/21/landlords-take-measure-v-to-court
You can read them an make your own determination. I do not claim or argue I am totally correct, only expressing opinions. I trust reasonable people can read that I have not been expressing false information, nor acting in a malicious or biased manner. Simply discussing the ramifications of the situation. I do not expect anyone to agree with my postings either, they are free to disagree because everyone has the right to make their own determinations.
I just hope that the court will not allow the lack of presented legal requirements being not presented will in fact cause bias in the court. When the City Attorney does not represent the legal or constitutional requirements under the law, the judge is left free to make decisions that are in violation of the laws and the constitution.
I have justified concern that a county court judge understands the complexity of this situation and can prevent the problems of not equally requiring the City Attorney to represent what the law requires for things like restraining orders are required to be enforceable.
If the judge is not presented the proper legal requirements needed to be satisfied by the Plaintiff the CAA, by the City Attorney, this simply will result in biased court decisions.
I believe this is what happened in this case.
If the situation was reversed, and you knew that those responsible for representing you were actively opposing your welfare, you would act in the same way.
Ale,
Please elaborate on how these tenants would detract from their neighborhoods and communities.
Mt View Neighbor and “interested,”
The courts have decided this many times in the past. Measure V is a standard rent stabilization act, the likes of which have been held up as valid under California law over and over again. It’s fun to see how many people become legal experts overnight, though.
Mtn View Neighbor, at least admit that you’ve been subsidized by the California taxpayer. It’s a simple fact, no matter how “offensive” you find it.
@interested, how is Prop 13 a false flag? All I saw Mt View Neighbor say about it was that they were offended. It’s a simple fact that it’s a subsidy for homeowners in California.
What part of Mt View Neighbor’s argument did you find compelling?
Interested,
I actually agree with you, I will try not to repeat anything I already have posted in the past.
One last thought I should have remembered, even though the Governor, the Attorney General, and most of the California Legislature hated Proposition 8. There was no action taken by any of them to thwart enforcement of it. These entities also did nothing to interfere with the functions of the court regarding advocating a stay of enforcement of Proposition 8.
The City of Mountain View is the exact opposite, they are taking any steps they can to not defend Measure V, not apply the rules regarding restraining order legal requirements, nor sabotaging their own case in the courts. The City of Mountain View has taken steps to advocate for a group that publicly discloses that sole purpose is of it to try to create laws that are only in the interests of their membership or find any loophole regarding legal regulations in the rental market. This seems to be a very ugly precedent.
Is this a good observation?
Me in MV,
I think the issue is this.
At one point of time the CAA claimed that they are going to be “Forced” to subsidize renters in the advertisements broadcast in opposition of Measure V.
Subsidies are defined as: A subsidy is generally a special money payment by a government to one or more firms in a favored industry, usually for the purpose of enabling them to sell one or more of their products at a price below their costs of production, or at least at a price below the free market price. Subsidies are typically advocated either to promote more widespread consumption or production of some favored good or service, or sometimes simply to stave off bankruptcy and unemployment in a declining industry or segment of an industry whose owners and/or workers enjoy a lot of political influence.
However, the same CAA members are the beneficiaries of significant tax credits which are subsidies, but the CAA does not rent properties at below the free market price.
Please explain where you learned that renting cannot be a permanent housing solution? As long as the rents are paid, one can choose to live in an apartment until the apartment is destroyed by either fire, earthquake or other natural cause, or the land is redeveloped.
Also, there is no rule, law, or other doctrine that renting an apartment cannot be permenant solution for housing. In fact, it is sometimes the only option for one to be able to reside anywhere. This is because to buy a home, one must produce as much as 20% of the house price as a down payment. When cost of living is significantly high like here in the valley, it can greatly impair such savings.
Of course, if the CAA had it’s way, the SF and Silicon Valley will eventually create such discouragement to living here, the “Brain Drain” will result in the destruction of the value of living here. I lost a good friend who lived here for 20 years, because he chose to move to Texas, even though he earned a 6 figure income in the valley. But he took a significant pay cut, and moved, where the cost of living was 30% lower.
The CAA simply does not look at the long term consequences. Many firms like PayPal for instance built their major IT clusters in Colorado and Nebraska. The same is happening for Google, Apple, Microsoft and so on. Of course those jobs went to those locations, if this pattern is not stopped, there will be a eventual collapse of the values of all properties in the Valley. Smart workers do not need to work here, and businesses do not need to be here. The CAA could be instrumental of the eventual desertion of Silicon Valley.
Of course, the City of Mountain View does not understand the the City is at the tipping point, and their choice will determine either the survival or destruction of the city.
Wow, “Down with V” is such a compassionate neighbor. It sounds like they are opposed to Proposition 13, too, since they think people should get out if they can’t afford the market property taxes. For them, I guess, Mountain View should only exist for the wealthy. I’m sorry, but I’d prefer to keep our communities together rather than tear them apart.
Mike, do you ever tire of posting the same thing in every Measure V thread? You’re neither a lawyer nor a resident of Mountain View, but for some reason you keep gracing us with your exciting insight into the Supreme Court and property law.
“Evolve” is quite the euphemism for “purge the non-wealthy.” These people cook your food, sell your groceries, wash your car, care for your children, but you don’t care that they can’t afford to live in your community.
But, thank you again for your opposition to Proposition 13.
First, I am trying my best to keep it short, but I need to document my claims enough to demonstrate some error in presentation. I am so sorry but if I don’t peopled, like Mike Rose will simply claim I am reporting inaccurately
Mike Rose ,
It appears you repeated the claim that rent control was unconstitutional based on Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (1997) is incorrect if you read http://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/16/761.html
The Supreme Court noted:
“Court of Appeal Decision in Kavanau I
In Kavanau I, the Court of Appeal determined that the Rent Board’s application of its 12 percent limit to Kavanau’s petition for rent increases was unconstitutional. Though the court did not state whether it found a violation of Kavanau’s due process rights or a taking without just compensation, the court applied a due process analysis and relied on our decisions in Calfarm, supra, 48 Cal. 3d 805, Fisher, supra, 37 Cal. 3d 644, and Birkenfeld, supra, 17 Cal. 3d 129, which were all due process cases. (Kavanau I, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at pp. 734-735.) THUS, WE CONCLUDE THE COURT DID NOT FIND A TAKING.”
The Supreme Court said.
“WE QUESTION SOME OF THE COURT OF APPEAL’S REASONING IN KAVANAU I. FOR EXAMPLE, THAT COURT IMPLIED THAT THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS REQUIRE APPLICATION OF THE “FAIR RETURN ON INVESTMENT” FORMULA FOR SETTING RENT CEILINGS. (Kavanau I, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at pp. 733, 735; for a discussion of the fair return on investment formula, see Guidelines, supra, 35 Rutgers L.Rev. at pp. 790-796.) THOUGH WE HAVE USED THE PHRASE “JUST AND REASONABLE RETURN” (BIRKENFELD, SUPRA, 17 CAL.3D AT P. 165), WE HAVE NEVER HELD THAT EITHER THE STATE OR FEDERAL CONSTITUTION REQUIRES APPLICATION OF THE FAIR RETURN ON INVESTMENT FORMULA OR ANY OTHER SPECIFIC FORMULA. (Fisher, supra, 37 [16 Cal. 4th 778] Cal.3d at p. 681 [rejecting argument that Constitution requires application of the circular “fair return on market value” formula]; Carson, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 191.)”
The Supreme Courts conclusion was
“Conclusion
Kavanau I determined that application of the Rent Board’s 12 percent limit on rent increases violated Kavanau’s right to due process. THE REMEDY OF FUTURE RENT ADJUSTMENTS AVAILABLE TO KAVANAU UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE PRECLUDES A FINDING OF A TAKING IN THIS CASE. ACCORDINGLY, WE AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL.”
In the Majority opinion it was said:
“THUS, ONE WHO PERSISTS IN ENGAGING IN A REGULATED ACTIVITY OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME, WHEN WITHDRAWAL FROM THAT ACTIVITY IS AN OPTION, CANNOT LAY AT THE DOORSTEP OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION THE REASON FOR ITS ECONOMIC FAILURE. Government regulation may indeed place some firms in financial jeopardy, but that in itself does not give rise to a constitutional violation when the government does not block the outflow of assets from these no-longer-profitable enterprises. SOME FEATURES OF THE RATE REGULATION MAY BE A VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS IF THEY CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PART OF A RATIONAL REGULATORY SCHEME, AND THESE WOULD THEREFORE BE SUBJECT TO INVALIDATION THROUGH INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF. But it does not follow that one who has a right to withdraw his capital from the regulated enterprise in question may press a damages claim against the government, either a just compensation claim for a taking or a statutory claim for damages under section 1983 of title 42 of the united states code. It appears doubtful therefore that a landlord who is subject to lower-than-reasonable rents, AND HAS THE OPTION OF WITHDRAWING FROM THE RENTAL MARKET, OR RECOUPING HIS PREVIOUS LOSSES PROSPECTIVELY THROUGH A COMPENSATORY RENT ORDER, CAN EVER PRESS SUCH A CLAIM.”
Measure V contains specific language finding that it is an enactment based on a rational regulatory scheme. Measure V guarantees that the CAA can participate in due process and acquire a compensatory rent order, after a hearing with the City CSFRA board. The county court cannot assume that these hearings are not in compliance with due process “prospectively” because no hearings have in fact taken place yet. How can the court determine a board determination is a taking against the CAA? The court can only intervene after evidence of the board’s actions are violation of due process or has become a taking can the court intervene, because such violation simply has not taken place.
So your claim that the Kavanau case was one of a violation of the takings clause is incorrect. Measure V does in fact provide a rational regulatory scheme AND rent adjustments, this does not run afoul to the requirements established in this case.
Mike Rose , it almost looks like your trying to encourage me to present information that clearly does more to support Measure V than argues against it. I think you are actually helping me guide my research, and I thank you very much.
Again, I feel that the City Council and City Attorney knows about this situation and has seen fit to actively attack the City of Mountain View simply because they failed to win Measure W. The City Council made no attempt to hide the fact that it was an enemy of Measure V. This behavior would be consistent with both criminal and civil negative consequences under federal law.
Mike Rose, if the situation was reversed, and you knew that those responsible for representing you were actively opposing your welfare, you would act in the same way.
“Down with V”
The results from election night indicate otherwise. Most people in Mountain View actually care about their neighbors, unlike you. It’s sad you’re unwilling to confront the realities of the policies you support, and instead need to deflect with falsehoods and misdirection.
I know it’s difficult for you to comprehend, but even many property owners voted for Measure V because they care about their neighbors that are mere renters. They don’t wish to see their communities torn apart simply because Mountain View has become too expensive.
Two points have been made:
Posted by george drysdale
Do you want a police department, schooling or lots of “affordable housing.”
George, why do you assume that the world is a “Zero-sum” situation. It almost appears your trying to instigate a conflict by saying the police and education interests should openly fight against affordable housing. However, in the real world, these are interests that have been equally addressable even though poorly by the City of Mountain View.
Mike Rose, you said:
Rent control is immoral government sanctioned theft of private property.
Business Man you are losing everyone in your long rants and twisting the legal theories to accommodate your views.
I agree my comments are long I am sorry. However, I am not twisting anything, I am simply correcting your false representations. But if you want to claim that immoral laws should not exist then let’s look at what immoral laws that existed that in fact some took millions of lives to finally correct it.
Slavery, the US sanctioned slavery for more than 100 years, it went to war and killed millions of people.
African Americans cannot vote, in the US for more than 100 years African Americans were forbidden to vote.
Women’s right to vote, for hundreds of years it was well settled that women must not be allowed to vote.
Finally most legal professionals will tell you, that morality and the law often run in conflict. It takes political action via legislation, ballot initiative, or court decisions as a check and balance to revise the law so that it may closer reflect all immoral acts.
So far the courts have determined that all parts of Measure V in the past are found constitutional, the court has not made any determination yet that it is not. I am significantly concerned that the court will not be objective because those required to defend the law are choosing to sabotage it in the court.
MY biggest concern is that given the City Attorney is sabotaging the City of Mountain View citizens by not appropriately requiring established laws be followed, the citizens of Mountain View are being attacked by it’s own government.
If a court decision is made under these circumstances, it will be appealed and the Judges ruling will be overturned if it can be established that the proper procedures in the law are not complied with. That is called irreversable error.
The City Council consists of individuals who really do not have even the remote education in how to handle governmental affairs of the City of Mountain View.
But the City of Mountain View voted them in their office, the City should be a lot more careful regarding who gets elected, making sure that those that are have the skill set to properly do the job with any kind of formal education regarding governmental affairs.
I know this will kill my application for being a CSFRA board member, but sometimes the truth really hurts.
Everyone, if the situation was reversed, and you knew that those responsible for representing you were actively opposing your welfare, you would act in the same way.
The Business Man,
I totally agree with you that laws and morality are and were very often in conflict.
You cited beautifully the cases throughout the US history, more could be cited throughout the world history.
Unfortunately this just reinforces my point that the rent control is immoral but at this point legal. I wish and hope that our laws in this matter would become moral and fair.
It is also contradictory that you are totally OK with the will of voters in reference to Measure V, but not in reference to electing the current City Council.
This shows BIAS and you are not a good candidate for CSFRA.
At the end I don’t think that our comments here convinced a single person with opposing views. The views in this matter are impossible to reverse as they are highly correlated to our own lifetime experiences.
So have a Happy New Year and lets see what the courts say. I think it is going to be interesting.
Mike Rose,
Mea Culpa, I am guilty of bias against the City Council and City Attorney.
But I have done a thorough job at describing the cause of this position.
I simply think that these individuals are too easily manipulated because they do not know how to do their job the right way.
I will be happy to withdraw my application to the board as soon as next week, thus I cannot be considered any evidence of bias on behalf of the board.
Your not paid to do it anyway. It should be a paid position.
Pay for Play,
My up front warning, I will cite the Mountain View Code of Conduct (http://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=11671) , it is long, I tried to make it as short as I can.
You make a very good observation. In fact the California and Federal laws, and the City of Mountain View charter and the City Council Code of Conduct agree with you. In fact the City Attorney in this situation is compelled to disregard any decision based on violations of the above.
I will just copy the code of conduct with this post:
“3.4 Conflict of Interest
3.4.1 In order to assure their independence and impartiality on behalf of the public good, Councilmembers are prohibited from using their official positions to influence government decisions in which they have a financial interest or where they have an organizational responsibility or a personal relationship that would present a conflict of interest under applicable State law.
3.4.5 City Councilmembers should avoid any action that could be construed as, or create the appearance of, using public office for personal gain, including use of City stationery or other City resources to obtain or promote personal business.
3.4.7 In keeping with their role as stewards of the public interest, Councilmembers shall not appear on behalf of the private interests of a third party before the City Council or any board, commission, or committee or proceeding of the City, except as permitted by law.
3.4.8 To the best of their ability, Councilmembers shall represent the official policies and positions of the City Council. When presenting their personal opinions or positions publicly, members shall explicitly state they do not represent the Council or the City.
3.4.9 Mountain View City Charter Provisions
3.4.9.1 Financial Interests in City Contracts Prohibited.
No officer or employee of the City shall become financially interested except by testate or intestate succession, either directly or indirectly, in any contract, sale, purchase, lease, or transfer of real or personal property to which the City is a party or be employed by any public service corporation regulated by or holding franchises in the City. …[A]ny contract made in contravention of this section shall be void. (Section 706)
3.4.9.3 Political Activities Prohibited; Discrimination.
This provision provides that:
1. No employee shall, while in uniform or during the employee’s working hours, take an active part in any municipal or other political campaign.
2. No employee shall, while in uniform or during the employee’s work hours, seek or accept contributions for or against a candidate or issue.
5. For purposes of this section, the term “employee” shall include contract employees and consultants who function as City employees.
3.4.11 California State Law Regarding Conflicts
Four key areas of California State law regulate the ethics of public officials.
3.4.11.2 Contractual conflicts of interest
This prohibition, found in Government Code Section 1090, mirrors the City’s Charter Provision Section 706 and applies to elected and appointed officials as well as other City staff members. It prohibits the City from entering into a contract if one of its members (i.e., a Councilmember) is financially interested in the contract. If the bar (or prohibition) applies, the agency is prohibited from entering into the contract whether or not the official with the conflict participates or not. In some limited circumstances, officials are allowed to disqualify themselves from participation and the agency may enter into the contract.
Financial interest has been defined to include employment, stock/ownership interests, and membership on the board of directors of a for-profit or nonprofit corporation, among others. Violations can be charged as a felony. A person convicted of violating Section 1090 is prohibited from ever holding public office in the State.
3.4.11.3 Political Reform Act—Conflicts of Interest
The Political Reform Act (PRA) was adopted by the voters in 1974 and is the primary expression of the law relative to conflicts of interest (and campaign finance) in California. The Act created the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), a five-member State board which administers the Act.
The Act and the regulations are complex and are continuously subjected to official interpretation. The following synopsis of key parts of the Act will be helpful in spotting issues; however, the FPPC and/or City Attorney should be consulted for further advice and clarification.
With respect to conflicts of interest, the FPPC has promulgated a regulation which establishes an analysis which assists in determining whether a public official is participating in a government decision in which they have a qualifying financial interest and whether it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect on the public official’s financial interest, which is distinguishable from the effect the decision will have on the public generally.
3.4.11.3.1 If a member has a conflict of interest regarding a particular decision, they must refrain from making or participating in the making of a decision unless otherwise permitted by law.
If a public official has a financial interest that gives rise to a conflict of interest, one of the key determinations in the eight-step analysis is to determine whether or not the public official is “participating in” or “making” a governmental decision.
3.4.11.3.1.1 A public official makes a government decision when they do the following:
• Vote on a matter.
• Appoint a person.
• Obligate or commit his or her agency to any course of action.
• Enter into any contractual agreement on behalf of his or her agency.
• Determine not to act in certain circumstances.
3.4.11.3.1.2 A public official participates in making governmental decisions when acting within the authority of his or her position, they do the following:
• Negotiate without significant substantive review with a governmental entity or private person regarding a governmental decision.
• Advise or make recommendations to the decision-maker either directly or without significant intervening substantive review by:
— Conducting research or an investigation which requires the exercise of judgment on the part of the official and the purpose of which is to influence governmental decisions; or
— Preparing or presenting any report, analysis, or opinion orally or in writing which requires the exercise of judgment on the part of the official and the purpose of which is to influence a governmental decision.
3.4.11.3.2 When a public official has a qualifying financial interest, that official may not use their office or otherwise attempt to influence governmental decisions or make appearances or contacts on behalf of a business entity, client, or customer.
3.4.11.3.3 If an official has a qualifying financial interest, there are nevertheless exceptions which allow a public official to make an appearance before an agency in very limited circumstances. The one that is most commonly encountered is an appearance by a public official to represent himself or herself with respect to a proposed project or change in their neighborhood. If the appearance is permitted under State law, the appearance is limited to appearing at a public meeting at the podium and addressing a board, commission, or the City Council. The official may not contact members of staff, the City Manager, or City Attorney, or discuss the matter with other Councilmembers. A public official with a conflict cannot interact with staff on that issue other than to ask questions, pay fees, etc.”
It would appear that your observation is very correct. THere are many specific sections in the code of conduct being violated here. The City Council’s act should be determined as void or unenforceable by the City Attorney, and thus the City Attorney must disregard any order or consideration promoted by said violators of the code of conduct, let alone the other laws in place.
This may be the most understated statement to use here:
“What we have here boys is a failure to communicate”
LOL
Pay for Play,
I will not reprint the code but simply site its code numbers to keep my comments brief. My specific observation is 5 of the members actively opposed Measure V and were the City Council members that proposed and initiated Measure W. They have the right to do so. If you read my previous post of the code conduct however, one could conclude that they failed to follow it.
The City Council members in support of Measure W cannot influence government decisions in which they have a financial interest or where they have an organizational responsibility or a personal relationship that would present a conflict of interest under 3.4.1 of the Code of Conduct. In this case the City Council members that voted to put Measure W on the ballot simply has a personal relationship of some kind with the CAA. On its face that occurred here.
The City Council members in support of Measure W cannot shall not appear on behalf of the private interests of a third party before the City Council or any board, commission, or committee or proceeding of the City under 3.4.7 of the Code of Conduct. In this case the City Council members that voted to put Measure W on the ballot simply appears to be appearing on behalf of the CAA. On its face that occurred here.
The City Council members in support of Measure W cannot participate in a government decision in which they have a qualifying financial interest and whether it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect on the public official’s financial interest, which is distinguishable from the effect the decision will have on the public generally. This would violate 3.4.11.3 of Code of Conduct. In this case the City Council members that voted to put Measure W on the ballot simply can be foreseen as having a financial interest or material impact on their financial interests to support the CAA. On its face that occurred here.
The City Council members in support of Measure W cannot vote or make any governmental decisions under 3.4.11.3.1 and 3.4.11.3.1.1 of the Code of Conduct. Specifically they are disallowed to Vote, Obligate or commit his or her agency to any course of action, or determine not to act in certain circumstances. The fact that the City Council has instructed the City Attorney to NOT advocate for the Citizens of the City of Mountain View seems to be an act in violation of this provision. On its face that occurred here.
The City Council members in support of Measure W cannot advise or make recommendations to the decision-maker either directly or without significant intervening substantive review by specifically preparing or presenting any report, analysis, or opinion orally or in writing which requires the exercise of judgment on the part of the official and the purpose of which is to influence a governmental decision under 3.4.11.3.1.2. Specifically they are disallowed to advise the City Council or the City Attorney. The fact that the City Council has instructed the City Attorney to NOT advocate for the Citizens of the City of Mountain View seems to be an act in violation of this provision. On its face that occurred here
The City Council members in support of Measure W cannot participate in influencing any governmental decisions or make appearances or contacts on behalf of a business entity under 3.4.11.3.2. Specifically they are disallowed to appear to be influencing or advocate for any business interest. In this case the CAA. Those members actively participated in ordering the City Attorney to NOT advocate for the Citizens of the City of Mountain View seems to be an act in violation of this provision. On its face that occurred here
The City Council members that supported Measure W would have to recuse themselves from voting, or advising, and testify in an open meeting. This did not occur in this case. The failure to do so violated 3.4.11.3.3 of the City Council Code of Conduct. This provision specifically requires that said City Councilperson must make an appearance in an open meeting, not represent the City Council, not participate an any votes regarding the issue, and cannot interact with anyone that are members of staff, the City Manager, or City Attorney, or discuss the matter with other Councilmembers. On its face it appears that occurred here.
This would in fact on its face indicate that the course of action taken, since no open meeting in fact occurred in December before the City Council ordered or advised the City Attorney to stipulate to the restraining order, would have made such stipulation a violation of the Code of Conduct. The City Attorney must withdraw the stipulation in court because of this.
Sorry it was very long.
EVERYONE
PLEASE LET’S NOT GET INTO PERSONAL ISSUES HERE?
I AM BEGGING FOR FORGIVENESS ON MY PART AS WELL.
I know this is a very important topic. But getting into a the proverbial blanking contest will get us nowhere.
Interested, I agree with you. Even if one opposes the City Council, one has no right to disrupt it. It reminds me of when the president was interrupted by a congressman during his state of the union speech with the “You lie”.
The decorum of the City Council chamber must not be disrespected. I too found it quite damaging to the opposition of the City Council. The representatives of the CAA and the landlord was very clever to instigate an outburst, but the one disrupting the meeting didn’t understand that unfortunately.
We still have the problem, the City Council cannot competently perform their duties because they violate their code of conduct and do not understand the real problem.
But we who disagree must not behave in any way to provide distraction from the topic. I hope this was a significant learning situation that will result in it not occurring again.
At least you must admit, I am trying to be objective in this matter.